It won't work. We didn't do anything last time. We were lied to by Bush, so we should just let Assad get away with using chemical weapons and trash international law. Ok, the conclusion is never stated but won't that be the result of inaction in the face of the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons?
Secretary of State Kerry is correct to draw attention to the pledge never again. This is not a case of genocide, but it has been a long hard effort to get any acts of state violence banned under international law. Many of the opponents of action against the
Syrian regime have pointed to failure in the case of Darfur or in other cases of massive killings of civilians. By that logic, failure in the past is reason to continue to fail to demand adherence to international law now. If we give up on the use of chemical weapons, there won't be a lot left to give up on. The message for any regime will be clear: if push comes to shove, you can do anything you want. You can kill you can gas with total impunity as long as you possess some cynical allies in the Security council. Those who actually support human rights will opt to do nothing because they did nothing last time.
If you oppose the President's call to uphold the ban on chemical weapons, please don't justify your position by using examples of past failure and please do not conclude with some incredibly vague suggestion that you have some better plan just waiting to emerge from the Security Council.