If your country was using WMD, would you want to be bombed by another?

[Happyhippychick]

Instead of asking the Congress, why not ask the people of Syria? I know this is hypothetical but doesn't it make sense?

I would say "absolutely not!" More violence is not the way to save lives.

[phleshdef]

1. The question is certainly not that black and white.

Would I want my neighborhood bombed by another country? No of course not. But if they were gonna bomb military targets that allow my country to deploy WMDs all over my neighborhood, then yes, please bomb the shit out of my country, if that's the way its gonna go.

[Happyhippychick]

2. What guarantee that military targets are the only thing being hit

And your regime won't release more WMDs on you and your neighbors?

[HooptieWagon]

3. The US has more chemical weapons than any other country.

And we have provided them to Saddam, and instructed him how to most effectively use them.
Further, the US military has used white phosphorus and depleted uranium in battle. US drones still target civilians.
And of course, the US is still the only country to have used atomic weapons against another country.
All bad...but I still wouldn't want another country to bomb the US for those reasons. And there is no peace or political goals that can be accomplished with a military strike on Syria. The risks are too great, and the chances of a positive outcome practically nil.

[cry baby]

4. If our govt was using chemical weapons on me or other American citizens,

then my answer is that I would want someone in the world to care enough to take out the ability of my govt to kill my fellow citizens.

I would not want indiscriminate bombing, but I would want bombs hitting the source of the govt's assault on its own citizens.

[HappyMe]

5. That makes sense.