Re: Syria. Look at it this way.

[jeff47]

26. Why wouldn't he?

as of yet, unsubstantiated report

The Secretary-General of the UN says there was an attack by Assad's forces. France, who opposed the Iraq war, says there was an attack by Assad's forces.

Assad's forces are the only side in the civil war that has chemical weapons. There is a single picture where Assad's forces claim rebels have a small quantity of chemical weapons. But more damningly, Assad's forces are the only ones with the chemical-warhead-tipped rockets used in the attack. No one has supplied those weapons to the rebels, because they are useless without chemical weapons.

worst case scenario speculation

Assad faces a real danger of swinging from a lamppost when this war ends. If this small attack results in nothing, why would he not do a large-scale attack to save his own skin and remain in power?

We said we'd attack if he did this small-scale attack. If we do nothing, he will have no reason to believe he would face an attack after a large-scale attack.

And I firmly believe that the same people on DU and elsewhere who oppose an attack today would oppose an attack after a large-scale attack. "Bombing more Syrians won't bring them back to life" will be the argument used.

So what would Assad have to lose if nothing happens to him over this attack?