I dont think we need to bother going over for a fifteenth time why Assad would have used chemical weapons. We have the german intelligence, the american intelligence, the defectors saying theyve used it previously, the mad brother, the potential loss of their capital city. 'It doesnt make sense' only works if you ignore the facts. Can we say for sure it was Assad or one of his generals? No, otherwise we wouldnt be having this conversation, so lets not go over it all again because clearly nobody is convincing anybody.
As to why chemical weapons are such a big deal, its any weapon which is designed to be used indiscrimnately. Theres a really good direct answer to exactly that point at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/.
As to russia enabling bloodshed - yes. Has american intervention too? Absolutely. The original point was they arent being angels here, thats only the ICRC. I personally think substantially less civilians would die given Assads methods of winning, but again, were going to have to disagree.
Using Assad potentially using chemical weapons because they MIGHT lose the capital as reasoning why they would maybe use chemical weapons when there was no risk of that happening at all.... is simply silly.
Second, American "intelligence", I won't go as far as to say it's an oxymoron but America has vested interests here and isn't remotely reliable when they've faked evidence before, aren't even slightly beyond lying to get their own way and lets be honest, sending in CIA guys to fake an attack isn't remotely beyond their capability anyway.
On if chemical weapons are good or bad, again I'll point out that by partitioning up weapons arbitrarily into good and bad columns, not surprisingly with the bad weapons being things America/west doesn't like fighting AGAINST, they can at the same time make the "good" weapons list seem more acceptable and themselves seem more moral if they lead a worldwide crusade against a weapon type they don't like and can't defend against easily.
Ultimately land mines are great defensively.... america hasn't had a defensive war in 70 years, but offensive.... So create international outcry with pictures of kids with legs blown off and force the world to rid themselves of mines...... which by and large makes invasion far easier.... and which country is out there invading everyone else. Is it ANY of the countries that used mines, or lets be honest, America... is there any other major country invading others in the past 60 years? funny that their international outcry isn't against nukes, but against the single best defensive tool in the world that puts off invaders, what is one of the biggest things spoken about in Iraq, IED's... which is a mine and one of the only successful tools they've had.
What is the other thing you can't easily defend against, gas, so what is the only other thing international rallied against, the only other fairly easy thing to deploy against invading american forces. I've seen nothing and no explanation why chemical weapons can only be used indiscriminately but "smart bombs" are targetted. Smart bombs, bullets, tanks all kill innocent civilians and there is nothing stopping a chemical weapon being launched into a US base in the middle of nowhere with no chance of civilians being killed. It's simply BS pushed by people who are against weapons which can be used against them and for weapons which they can use well.
The original point I take well, Russia are doing it for their own reasons of not wanting yet another US supported country in the region not because Russia are wanting to do the right thing. It just happens in this case that what Russia wants is also best for Syria. I don't agree the US could wipe out Assad with less losses than Assad wiping out the rebels. US will need to remove Assad from the most heavily populated places in the country. Ultimately even if it were true, supporting a terrorist backed force that is illegally trying to overthrown a government, that started the civil war and has used barberous tactics is beyond reprehensible. Using chemical weapons isn't remotely as immoral as supporting someone like the rebels.... as in Lybia, it will turn into a power struggle and turn into a long drawn out civil war with too many groups and cells fighting for power to actually go in and help them out.
Simple fact is other places in the world will go through civil wars, power struggles, governments being overthrown because the world has worked like that for millenia. It's somewhat "normal", as we've seen in Lybia and Egypt, the "rebels" simply use the tactic of using the unhappy masses to overthrow a government then seize control for themselves. I would be very surprised if the rebels won in Syria and the same issues Lybia/Egypt is having don't occur here. THe "masses" think they've won and they'll have democracy and everything will get better, but it will turn out the leader(s) of the rebellion were talking out their butts, whipping up support talking of fairness, democracy, then when they get the chance it will disintergrate into many smaller battles as they struggle over who gets to be in charge.
Every time we get involved in one of these.... we make life long enemies, when we don't, the countries get through it quicker and easier and don't decide it's our ruddy fault.
It's ridiculous, we can't wade into these situations or even LOOK like we might because it will encourage another country to try the same thing. I said at the time with Egypt that winning will both turn out terribly long term for them, and encourage the same thing elsewhere and it will be a disaster.
)