I just don't get it.

[Else You Are Mad]

Using conventional weapons that kill innocent civilians is just fine but using chemical weapons that kill innocent civilians is wrong and deserves war?

If this was about innocent babies being killed, shouldn't Trump have attacked Syria earlier? They, sadly, have been babies dying in Syria for years now. This is about trying to raise his approval ratings and to hide the bad job's report and Russian connections.

[shraby]

1. It's all about approval ratings, to change the narrative from nunes and try to show

distance from putin.
(I refuse to capitalize their names anymore. That's indicative of respect and I have none where these weasels are concerned.)

[Jonny Appleseed]

2. From the perspective of the populous' response, chemical weapons being used is largely reactionary

Unnecessary cruel and inhuman as such. But from a militaristic perspective chemical weapons becoming normalized is a slippery slope, just like nukes. Imagine if everybody used chemical weapons. There'd be an arms race to make them more and more effective. That includes super-potent distribution methods like tainting entire water systems or wind currents. Imagine a type of sarin gas and distribution method that could spread it across an entire region. A radius of impact far larger than a nuke would create.

And that slippery slope continues because the methodological similarities in delivery between chemical and biological weapons are far and few in between.