Liberals Ask: Why The Violent Reaction To Chemical Weapons Usage?

Now that our decisive President has done what our old President refused to do, protect women, children and other innocent civilian noncombatants, and has sent missiles into Syria in response to Assad’s gassing his civilian population, the American left is filling their drawers equating more traditional bombs and guns with chemical weapons and declaring that if Trump attacks for gas usage he will respond with troops on the ground next, because Assad will, without doubt, continue to fight with traditional weapons.

Only fools would make such a comparison between very different weapons, so this needs to be explained to the liberal Democrats.

Not only did the use of chemical weapons get a bad name following its usage in WWI and with its utilization in Nazi concentration camps in WWII, but gas is messy, unpredictable and impacts everyone and everything in its path.

A rifle or a bomb will cause destruction and often death, but there are many people in its area of usage who will escape harm. But everyone in the area of a chemical bomb detonation will be killed or severely hurt, and the damage can last for hours before death relieves the pain and suffering.

And as regards the use of combat troops to get rid of Assad, most Americans don’t have a problem with the tactic of a ground invasion, as long as it’s attack-destroy-and-get-out. But America wants no more of this lingering, fighting and dying with horribly restrictive rules of engagement, as Obama gave us. Just kill the cretin bastards and get out.