It's absolutely in the US's core national interest to reinforce the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. We don't have to invade Syria over it, but we should absolutely be sending a message - to Syria, Iran, NK, and everyone else - that the use of chemical weapons will provoke a response.

In mid-1939, the formula for the agent was passed to the chemical warfare section of the German Army Weapons Office, which ordered that it be brought into mass production for wartime use. Pilot plants were built, and a high-production facility was under construction (but was not finished) by the end of World War II. Estimates for total sarin production by Nazi Germany range from 500 kg to 10 tons.[40] Though sarin, tabun and soman were incorporated into artillery shells, Germany did not use nerve agents against Allied targets.

This reeks of a CIA op.

Just to be clear, you think it's reasonably likely that the CIA launched a covert chemical weapons strike against a civilian medical facility in order to frame the Syrian government for it and thus justify further US intervention? And, given the choice between that scenario and a scenario in which the Assad regime is responsible - a regime which unquestionably targets civilians and medical facilities on a regular basis, has tortured tens of thousands of its own citizens to death, and otherwise flagrantly violates every rule of war there is - you suspect the CIA scenario is the right one?

Even assuming Assad used chemical weapons, in a war he was winning, that he knew would bring a strong international response, what business is it of ours?

This reeks of a CIA op.

Really, we get it. You're a liberal now. Just shut the **** up.

we were assured that **** had given all his chemicals up to the Russians.

Really, we get it. You gargle Trump's balls. Just shut the **** up.

We have no business in Syria. Haven't for years. You wanna talk about the "Beautiful Babies"... maybe we should have worked on letting some of those refugees in.

Oh wait... that's because before they're dead, they're "potential terrorists".

Huh. Imagine that. The Russians aren't trustworthy.

That sounds like a lesson the idiot in chief should learn.

Or maybe they are trustworthy, and they're right about Assad not doing this. I wonder... where was ISIS that night? You don't think they'd have anything to gain by sparking a fight between Assad and Russia and the US?

Nah, just launch a bunch of missiles and blow up a few planes. That'll send a message right?

IMO we should have taken a shot at Assad.

**** him and the camel he rode in on.

They are, indeed, potential terrorists.

Huh. Imagine that. The Russians aren't trustworthy.

The main obstacle to productive discourse here is that the worst things Arafys and Diamondeye have to say about each other are all true.

The main obstacle to productive discourse here is that the worst things Arafys and Diamondeye have to say about each other are all true.

I will actually say I consider this response to be weak.

There should have been another dozen cruise missiles launched at the Presidential Palace in Damascus.

I'd suggest Trudeau order it, but I don't think we have cruise missiles, let alone ships in the region.

Lobby to buy some - including ships large enough to carry them. We can all do our part.