What would you do in Syria

[Dill]

(04-08-2017, 01:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh I thought you asked     Why diverge from the response set by past agreement and diplomacy?

I failed to see that you were being more specific in your query. I thought you may have been talking about using Chemical weapons

I did ask     "Why diverge from the response set by past agreement and diplomacy?"

But that question was immediately after this one: "Why could the US not follow UN Security Council Resolution 2118 and go to the UN for international support/sanction for military action against Syria? "

So I asked two questions regarding the US response to Assad's use of chemical weapons. The second was a variation/extension of the first.  

There are two context clues which should enable one to read the sentences together and understand how the second was related to the first.

1) Moving from one sentence to the other, there is no explicit change of subject.

2) An alternative interpretation, such as that the question referenced Assad rather than the US, would have strained logic and credulity. Why ask why Assad did not work through the UN to attack himself?  Whereas the question makes perfect sense and continues the thought of the previous sentence if read as referencing the US. Why should the US diverge from its own precedents, agreements, and standards?