I think Secretary Kerry said it best in his speech -- Americans are tired of war. I understand the moral obligation. It is not acceptable to allow people to die the way they did. At the same time, I am tired of war. And we have enough problems in the U.S. to take care of. Fueling the military-industrial complex again is not high on the priority list. Passing off the decision to Congress makes Obama look wishy-washy. Who cares. Let the people speak up. Let them call their Representatives and Senators to express support or disapproval of a strike. If Americans say no to action in Syria, despite the overwhelming evidence of genocide, perhaps this is the penance we pay for going into Iraq under false pretenses.
>It is not acceptable to allow people to die the way they did. To me this just seems like tacit endorsement of killing people with machine guns and cruise missiles instead.
Then why have we been allowing Assad and the rebels to kill each other with machine guns and rockets?
The same reason we do not crack down on our own citizens killing each other (or innocents) in the streets? The same reason we're slow to act when children are gunned down in school shootings? I wish I had a solution. I don't. Whether I call my congressional leader to say support or don't support Syria, nothing is going to change. Humanity has to change. Aside from being friendly, peaceful to whomever I may encounter, I kind of feel like everything else is really out of my control. So, as I said to someone I recently encountered who did not speak English well (and considering my Spanish is poor), "A smile says a lot."
There are a couple differences between machine guns and chemical weapons. Chemical weapons can very effectively murder masses of people, all while the people using them can be out of harms way with gas masks and such. And they are cheap. The manner of death is extremely painful and torturous. Reportedly they are using Sarin Gas in Syria - "Like other nerve agents, sarin attacks the nervous system. It stops nerve endings in muscles from switching off. Death will usually occur as a result of asphyxia due to the inability of the muscles involved in breathing to function" Chemicals can also effect a wider range of people and do so over an extended period of time. Some chemical weapons cause cancer, which may not be apparent for many many years. Yes, machine guns can injure without killing as well, but don't have the same lasting effects as chemical weapons do. Because of this chemical weapons are considered more of a torture device than tradition guns/rockets/ammo are. Conventional weapons, like rockets and machine guns, are still traditionally thought of as military tools. They can kill civilians as well, but the long standing ways of war (which are slowly changing) place them in a category of military vs military, not military vs civilians. The chemical warfare that we are seeing in Syria is military vs civilians and shows extreme callousness, and seen as something that should be dealt with immediately. The fact that they are openly targeting civilians with chemical weapons is not a problem between political or military opponents, but is wiping out civilians. This opens a bunch of doors because traditionally wars should be to sort out issues, resolve matters, etc etc. The civilians should stay out of harms way as much as possible so that once a resolution arises, they are able to be alive and healthy to kickstart the economy, return to daily life etc. While there are always civilian casualties in wars, the nature of chemical weapons changes the world's view and outlook on what is being accomplished in Syria. A bit of a messy slew of thoughts, hope this helps explain a bit. I'm not an advocate for any type of violence, chemical or machine guns, but this is why the media and political shitstorm is happening over the chemicals rather than the machine guns.
"Chemical weapons can very effectively murder masses of people, all while the people using them can be out of harms way with gas masks and such." Cruise missiles can very effectively murder masses of people, all the while the people using them are safe on a boat in the middle of the sea. "Chemicals can also effect a wider range of people and do so over an extended period of time. Some chemical weapons cause cancer, which may not be apparent for many many years." Depleted uranium rounds effect a wider range of people and do so over an extended period of time. They cause cancer and birth defects, which are often not apparent for many years. "The chemical warfare that we are seeing in Syria is military vs civilians" All the warfare we are seeing in Syria is military vs. civilian. It is a civil war.
You're absolutely right. I'm just making some observations to try to shed light on why we suddenly political leaders around the globe are ready to step in and the media is having a field day with the 24/7 coverage. I think what it comes down to is the perceived difference between the two, rather than the actual difference.
I find it so interesting that it is Secretary Kerry pushing this. At some point today I want to sit down and watch his entire testimony on Vietnam War as a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War
Yeah, and the situation is incredibly complicated... so what would happen if we did go to war? Which side do we support? Do we stay until the country is stable? Is this another ten year commitment?
Without trying to stir an ideological hornets nest, did you see Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States"? Whether you agree or disagree with Stone's presentation, his thesis was very spot-on. Simply put, the United States has become so entangled in international affairs that the decisions we make always result in long-term blowback. Until citizens start demanding its leaders to avoid unilateral policies, the cycle will perpetuate. Americans could have never predicted Jimmy Carter's funding of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and George H.W. Bush's alliance with the Saudi government in the Gulf War would have led to the blowback of Sept. 11. Perhaps non-action in Syria -- as terrible as the situation is -- breaks this repetition of entanglement. Maybe it allows the U.S. to reconsider its position in the world as it is, allowing the opportunities to strengthen itself through productive, non-violent means.