So,
will U.S. and allies strike before or after chemical weapons are used?
U.S. officials stressed that as of now, the sarin bombs hadn't been loaded onto planes and that Assad hadn't issued a final order to use them. But if he does, "there's little the outside world can do to stop it." Is this fashion of talk alluding to the fact that the only option for stopping a chemical attack is to strike before the order goes? Or, is the comment implying that we will not strike to prevent a chemical attack, and that Assad would be held accountable after the fact? If your the decision maker and you believe a chemical attack is going to be launched by Assad, do you strike first and take the heat? Or, do you let him kill with chemicals so that your unquestionably justified when you strike back with military force? Under who's leadership is either choice the more prudent one to make? Or do you do nothing?
U.S. officials stressed that as of now, the sarin bombs hadn't been loaded onto planes and that Assad hadn't issued a final order to use them. But if he does, "there's little the outside world can do to stop it." Is this fashion of talk alluding to the fact that the only option for stopping a chemical attack is to strike before the order goes? Or, is the comment implying that we will not strike to prevent a chemical attack, and that Assad would be held accountable after the fact? If your the decision maker and you believe a chemical attack is going to be launched by Assad, do you strike first and take the heat? Or, do you let him kill with chemicals so that your unquestionably justified when you strike back with military force? Under who's leadership is either choice the more prudent one to make? Or do you do nothing?
No comments:
Post a Comment