You're calling me stupid?
Would that be ad hominem?
I win. Thanks for the easy victory.
Your proposal that use of WMD on the battlefield has "no winners" is simply..... uninformed.
He could have used Sarin, VX, mustard, anthrax, whatever. We'd still have won, the tactics would have just been different and it would have taken more time.
Casualties higher, of course; looks like you're one of those folks that think the US won't take casualties to win. I think those folks don't really understand us in the least.
I'd suggest that once we decide to go, we're going and we're going to win. Our use of brutal force would probably escalate if casualties escalate. Generally, we fight in a pretty conservative "lowest possible destruction" mode. But that doesn't mean we won't use maximum violence if we feel it necessary.
Further, if we had so chosen, we could have replied in kind to an infinitely greater degree than he could possibly have imagined.