Is There Any Chance That Assad Would Use Chemical Weapons Again?......

[global1]

Now that it has been exposed that Assad has used chemical weapons - in part by the intelligence that was provided by Kerry's comments - does anyone think that Assad would be so bold to use chemical weapons again? I know that the UN inspectors haven't weighed in on this yet - but - the world kind of knows that this happened.

Is the fact that this information is out there a deterrent in and of itself that sends a message across Assad's bow?

Maybe world sentiment is not all in sync with a strike on Syria and Assad now - but don't you think if he uses chemical weapons again - the world's sentiment would become more in sync and a coalition against Assad would form.

I'm thinking that Obama taking this threat to strike Syria and Assad as an attempt to build world sentiment against him and is a more real warning to Assad versus the 'red-line crossed' comment.

I also think that all despots eventually fall. Assad will either be overthrown by his own people or be deposed in some fashion and wind up in the world court like other despots in the past.

Right now I think Assad is his own worst enemy and that somehow he will do himself in.

[cali]

1. it's possible. same holds true for rebel factions.

the U.N. report will not include who perpetrated the attacks, at least not directly.

The administration doesn't want to depose Assad, they recognize that what will follow will be worse.

No, all despots don't inevitably fall; see Mugabe.

[geek tragedy]

2. Why wouldn't he? We're not going to do anything meaningful

and his sponsor Putin has neither a conscience nor shame.

He has no reason to avoid gassing people to his heart's content.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. The question is "Will X use chemical weapons NEXT time?"

I guess I have to stipulate that I'm against military action in Syria at this time, but the only good reason for it has little to do with Assad and more to do with X - the next person contemplating the use of chemical or biological weapons. Does the virtually certain threat of reprisal enter that person's calculations, or does that person assess whether anyone has the political strength or will to respond? That's the operational question, in my view. Like I said, I'm against intervention in Syria at this time, but I also know that failing to respond swiftly and forcefully costs you something, and what it costs you (and the people in the NEXT situation) is the risk assessment made by the NEXT user of chemical or biological weapons. There is either a consistent and devastating cost for using such weapons, or there is not. (Queue the "arguments on inconsistency&quot . That's what it costs you to do nothing. At this point, that cost is perhaps worth it, but not by very much.