Certainly not this one. Strip 'em all on Russia's say so, as long as they're stripped. And while we're at it, let's strip one more. Us. What the fork do we need WMD's (nuclear weapons) for, anyway? So we can be the first to say we lobbed one...oh wait...ok, so we can say we lobbed ANOTHER one?Do we really think that anyone, much less Putin, would have "engineered" this >possible< deal, if the US threat hadn't pushed them to it? This regime has used gas >at least< 14 times, and the world yawned nervously. Where was Putin's "deal" prior to the threat of US intervention?
After being forced to concede that >all< of the pre-invasion justifications were shown to be false, this very forum will show instance after instance of Bush defenders falling back on Iraq's use of gas on their own citizens. Yet the very same thing just ten years later would have rated barely a tsk-tsk on the daily radar feed were it not for the President's lead in calling all the nations to live up to their vow to condemn and punish it's use.
We've seen snide partisan-driven comments about checkers vs chess. How's about the above for a chess move? How about a final move that maneuvered Syria's strongest ally into acting, or we should say, reacting? But! Even better, now Putin has put >Russian< credibility and prestige on the line to see that Syria follows through. Now, Russia, not the US, >owns< the result. If that means just one rogue nation is stripped of WMDs, what true citizen of humanity cares who gets the "credit"?