No we shouldnt attack then just let them kill eachother like israel did for god oh wait vice versa on that one. Well i dont want to write fifty word but its gonna make me do this word stuff and it suckes so yea la la la hey look thats fifty worrds!!!!!!!
When dealing with the question, should we attack a country that uses chemical weapons, there are several reasons we should not be afraid to do so. These countries hold some of the largest threats to our security as a nation. By holding, or using, chemical weapons, a country just reinforces their threat level. Obviously, a country that would be willing to use chemical warfare can not be allowed to continue. They are willing to put their own citizens at risk, by holding such weapons. Logically, they would therefore have no problem using these weapons on other countries. We can not show fear and allow terrorism to continue in this world.
If we attacked every country that has chemical weapons we would be at war with most countries in the world including our own, while it is distasteful that a government would use these weapons on their own country folk or other countries it is not for us to police the world so we should only attack if we are targeted, and use diplomatic pressure to encourage these countries not use such weapons.
We have staggering financial issues that we must address first. We are just ending a long protracted war that had drained us in many ways. We must focus on rebuilding our country and focusing in on important financial issues. This is morally questionable. The fact that no other country is joining in tells us all you need to know.
Soldiers are there for a reason. If the army is as good as they say and believe it shouldn't have to come to chemical weapons. What if they have no chemical weapons, what would they do then. If they keep on depending on chemical weapons they won't have to many skills without them. And this is coming from a kid. :(