Quote:
Originally Posted by DJQuad
Not that you have it in you to actually have a thoughtful, insightful debate without resorting to personal insults when you're proved wrong, but...
Syria says it's ready to disclose the location of chemical weapons, stop production, and show its facilities to Russia and the U.N..
Do you think that's "enough" or do we draw that weird line in the sand that whenever chemical weapons are used, we need to suddenly be the world's humanitarians?
Where's the new red line? If nobody does anything, rogue states like North Korea, Iran, and others see that chemical weapons are fine. It would lead to pushing that line with biological, nuclear, and so on. That doesn't even include conventional weapons.
|
I'm not sure what you're looking for and I don't really see where I was "proved wrong." I think I've been pretty consistent in my position that I don't have the answers.
Besides, I feel like I already shared my opinion on this. Read the first paragraph of the rambling bit you skipped over. I don't care about the mechanism by which the innocent are killed. Just that they are. Chemicals, bullets, napalm, machete or substandard healthcare... an innocent life is an innocent life. If I were a Syrian civilian right now, I'd really want someone to protect me, so in an ethical sense somebody should probably do something. The politics surrounding intervention will make taking military action difficult, and history has shown that simply arming the resistance, especially when they also don't like us, is probably a bad idea.
I'm glad I'm not in Obama's shoes right now... he's a flawed guy like any leader, but this is a fucked up situation. I'm not sure what I'd do.