Cluck U wrote:GannonFan wrote:I agree with him here in terms of his tactic - the world has shrunken away from its responsibility in this matter. It's easy to say we shouldn't have chemical weapons used on people and then be horrified when they do, but if you're not willing to stand up and do something about it, especially after you say you will, then you don't have credibility and these values you have don't amount to much. Obama is right in this case to cast the argument as saying the US is just doing what is morally correct and that the rest of the world, the UK including, is shirking their part of the job.
There are several things are wrong with your argument.
1) There has been no credible proof that the Syrian government used the gas. In fact, there have been several reports that the rebels have used gas...and we didn't bother to go after the rebels. If we are going to be led by some moral compass, there needs to be absolute proof...especially so in light of our previous "findings" of WMDs in Iraq.
I agree with this - if and when we go in, it needs to be with the surety of proof that the government of Syria did this. However, for some people, the government will never be able to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt so the burden of "absolute proof" is a convenient one to use when you want to not do something.
Cluck U wrote:
2) We ignored Saddam's use of gas on the Iranians...and on the Kurds...because it was in our best interest to do so.
Can't let history, and bad decisions from history, handcuff us in the present.
Cluck U wrote:
3) We ignored the slaughter of tens of thousands of people in Darfur, and 112 civilians under the boots of our buddies in Bahrain...and we continue to ignore other moral atrocities around the world and in our cities. How many people got murdered in Chicago and Detroit last year...and yet Obama is mobilizing a hoard of assets in response to a civil war incident that killed 400? Why didn't he mobilize against the AQ rebel leader who put out a film of him cutting out and eating the heart of a government soldier? Why didn't we mobilize against the Libyan rebels when they slaughtered Kwudoffy in the streets?
Morality and credibility have nothing to do with our decision to bomb Syria. Obama has decided that it is in our best interest to topple Assad. We will bomb Assad's forces, while simultaneously stating that we are increasing our military aid to the rebels, and those actions have little to do with credibility and ZERO to do with morality.
The distinction they are making here is the use of chemical weapons, not just the random or even systematic killing of people. We can't answer every moral outrage with US military might because there are too many of those to address, as you spell out. That can't be a credible line to use. Chemical weapons have been deemed, but this country and by others, as detestable enough that they are in a different category and they shouldn't be used.
There's nothing about removing Assad from power that really benefits us as a country except for the fact now that he's a ruler who will, reportedly, use chemical weapons and that we don't tolerate that in the world. We aren't getting oil out of this, we aren't setting up a government that will be friendlier to us (actually, in this case, it might go the other way and we have another fundamentalist government). You can argue whether it's really that much more of a moral outrage to use chemical weapons versus just using a gun (at the end, both victims are dead) but you can't argue that the international community has made a distinction that chemicals are worse and in that vein, at least, Obama is correct in pushing to do this and to chide the rest of the world for failing to have their actions match their words.
