If the world doesn't punish Assad for using chemical weapons, is he or anyone else more likely to use them in the future?

I am no war monger, but I think the answer is clearly yes. This clear international norm has been broken and it is more likely to broken again unless the world strongly says no. As a human rights activists, I support the limited use of airstrikes on the Assad regime and anyone else who uses chemical weapons.

After World War I, the civilized world declared chemical weapons off limits.  189 countries have signed on to the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Syria has refused to do so, making it only one of seven countries that hasn't ratified this important treaty.

I do not want the U.S. to take sides in this civil war.  However, I do agree that President Obama is right to stand up for the principle on the use of chemical weapons.  President Obama:

My goal is to maintain the international norm on banning chemical weapons.  I want that enforcement to be real.  I want it to be serious.  I want people to understand that gassing innocent people, delivering chemical weapons against children is not something we do.  It’s prohibited in active wars between countries.  We certainly don’t do it against kids.  And we’ve got to stand up for that principle.

And I respect people, including close friends, who disagree with me.  Andrew Sullivan has proposed an interesting compromise: have the international community agree that any further use of chemical weapons by any organized group will be met with united action by the world community.  My only concern is that this sounds like the world's empty promises when other atrocities were allowed to take place against the Jews, Cambodians, Rwandans, and Kurds at different times.

This is a vexing question that is worth a healthy debate.