This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

Both sides in the Syrian civil war are bad guys.  Both sides may possess chemical weapons.  If one side uses those weapons, it seems to me that the other side would be inclined to retaliate in kind.  It doesn't even matter who started it.


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

If killing a bunch of people with chemical weapons is really no different from using conventional weapons, then I suppose it is not a big deal if this war becomes an exercise in turning neighborhoods into open-air gas chambers, setting the precedent for future wars to look like that.

But, if there is a difference....

Let's go ahead and assume that the Syrian government is recent events.  If Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons before, why wouldn't he do it again, in the absence of pressure to stop?  If these Syrian militants include al-Qaeda fighters, what makes you think they would avoid the temptation to use chemical weapons, whether supplied by Saudi Arabia or taken from captured Syrian stockpiles?

And if it is some sort of 11-dimensional chess false flag operation, well, if I were Assad, I might want to go down swinging and do the things I've been falsely accused of doing because I am being blamed for it anyways.

The longer this action goes without a response, the more likely it is that someone will use chemical weapons again.  So, there is some undefined time constraint if the rest of the world doesn't want to see this civil war descend into tit-for-tat poison gas attacks.

The question then becomes, what sort of pressure is necessary to convince both sides to come to heel?  Does Assad need to feel that any further use of chemical weapons may cost him the war?  Do the rebels need to feel that Assad has been appropriately punished by the international community?  Are both sides a bunch of barbarians who only understand a fist or is there a diplomatic answer?

If it is not worth trying to bring an end to the war directly, is it an acceptable goal to discourage the further use of chemical weapons or retaliation in kind, so that both sides can go ahead and kill each other so long as they use conventional weapons?  If so, what is the minimum effort necessary to increase the chances that no more chemical weapons are used and is that effort non-military in nature?

Extended (Optional)

Your Email has been sent.