The Moral Ambiguity of the Syrian Drama

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by beezzer

The world community has to be careful of the message it is sending to the ME, , is it one of tolerance to acts of mass destruction and death?

edit on 1-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

Why do we even need to send a message?

What moral obligation do we have to the rest of the world?

Originally posted by BABYBULL24
800.000 thousand people were killed in Rwanda in 100 days by machetes & nobody said a peep in 1994.

So give me a break with this Red Line crap!.

A humble thank you and acknowledgement .

reply to post by beezzer


It would be "immoral" not to stand against the use of wmd's

Originally posted by BABYBULL24
800.000 thousand people were killed in Rwanda in 100 days by machetes & nobody said a peep in 1994.

So give me a break with this Red Line crap!.

No doubt.

"If I had a Red Line it would look like this thread."

Enough is enough.

Let Obama play Morality with action in Chicago or DC.

Fix the United States.

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by beezzer

 

It would be "immoral" not to send a message

edit on 1-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

Wouldn't our morality be determined by the type of message sent?

reply to post by beezzer


This is the conundrum, how to deliver that message without contradiction, it's worth discussion and deserves a thread of it's own.

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by beezzer

 

Yes, this is the conundrum, how to deliver that message without contradiction, it's worth discussion and deserves a thread of it's own.

edit on 1-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

The moral aspect is why this thread was created.

reply to post by all2human


Not to pick nits but...the bombs used in Boston were labeled WMDs so, obviously, that label is convenient.

On the one hand, chemical weapons in Syria affect the entire world, on the other, they affect none but those who maintained or tolerated a despotic tyrant as leader...and their innocent children.

As I said in another thread.

Make the UN a moving organization, one that is headquartered in places that need resolution.



Hows that for being morally accountable? Make those Nations have to send their leaders to these areas, to see and feel first hand what its like to live in a war zone. If they dont want to do it, then disband the UN. Period.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by beezzer

The world community has to be careful of the message it is sending to the ME, , is it one of tolerance to acts of mass destruction and death?

edit on 1-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

Why do we even need to send a message?

What moral obligation do we have to the rest of the world?

This reminded me of Obama's plea to congress he says that we need to enforce UN resolutions but then in the same speech says we dont need UN inspectors and we dont need to go to the UN for a resolution. This concerns me even Bush actually had a UN resolution. Then he asked what world the world think if we allow a dictator to gas his own people? Why does the United States have to be the world police why do we have to all ways be the one that acts? And the funny thing is the nations of the world expect us to but then will condemn us later once we have. In the Iraq war everyone was screaming for the US to act we did and were hung out to dry.So on Obama's question what would the world think no matter which course we take will be hated so really why bother.

Sorry if im rambling just sick and tired of other nations of the world that can sit back and criticize the United States because they are unwilling to take any action knowing that the US will. The worst part is you could get a UN resolution to actually send troops to contain the violence and make it multinational but he chooses a different course. Has anyone noticed that Obama has become George Bush?Every policy he has is identical even healthcare Bush expanded it then so does Obama Bush calls for war so does Obama bush declared war over in Iraq and was wrong. And Obama declares war on terror over and was wrong they could be clones.

Arab states urge action against Syrian government.The moral ambiguity in relation to Syria is in who knows exactly what they are talking about and who does not.

The total population today of the Western Hemisphere is about 1 billion.

So where exactly does the rest of the 7 billion people on this planet live???

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


???

Um. . . not sure I understand your post. Why would population size have any bearing on the morality of the situation?

reply to post by dragonridr


Agreed!

I am at a loss to find many politicians that could actually be described as having moral character.

Originally posted by Kashai
Arab states urge action against Syrian government.The moral ambiguity in relation to Syria is in who knows exactly what they are talking about and who does not.

The total population today of the Western Hemisphere is about 1 billion.

So where exactly does the rest of the 7 billion people on this planet live???

Any thoughts?

Ummmmm not in the western hemisphere like maybe Europe or Asia or Australia. Im not entirely sure you know what the western hemisphere is.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the wmds was made in the states they sold them to iraq and gave them to afghnistan in the 80s.

Originally posted by SupersonicSerpent
It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the wmds was made in the states they sold them to iraq and gave them to afghnistan in the 80s.

We know where he got them now In 2006, former Iraqi general, Georges Sada, who served under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a comprehensive book detailing how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria, before the US-led action to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s WMD threat, by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.So it turns out there were WMDs in Iraq after all and now there in Syria. So funny i guess this means alot of people can stop that there were no WMDs in Iraq huh.

Originally posted by beezzer
Forgive me for adding yet another Syria thread, but there is an aspect that I feel needs to be discussed. (It's so I can learn)

The, what I'm calling, "Moral Ambiguity" occurring recently. Specifically about Syria.

We knew Syria had WMD's.

And there was no cry to attack.

They (whomever "they" are) use WMD's and all of a sudden, we need to bomb them? It is a "moral imperative"?

What else would you use chemical WMD's for? What application could chemical weapons be used for, other than killing people?

People die every day everywhere around the world.

Yet WE beat the war drums and cry foul when chemical weapons are used?

What the heck???

And the claim that it is "moral" to be outraged about the use of chemical WMD's, yet stay silent when it is simple lead bullets that are doing the killing?

I'm flat-out calling bullspit on the whole thing!

Yes, people are dying. People are dying here. (where's the moral outrage?)

But do we need to commit an act of war simply for a trumped up accusation and build the effort with PHONEY moral outrage?

I placed this rambling diatribe in this forum because I wanted to focus on the authenticity of this "moral" issue.

I invite any and all to educate me on the subject.

Is lead a chemical? Why yes it is. Just saying.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by SupersonicSerpent
It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the wmds was made in the states they sold them to iraq and gave them to afghnistan in the 80s.

We know where he got them now In 2006, former Iraqi general, Georges Sada, who served under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a comprehensive book detailing how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria, before the US-led action to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s WMD threat, by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.So it turns out there were WMDs in Iraq after all and now there in Syria. So funny i guess this means alot of people can stop that there were no WMDs in Iraq huh.

Whether extra were acquired from Iraq or not CW programs were underway in Syria a long time before 2003. The country had its own CW programme going back to the 80s. Most likely as a response to the Egyptian- Israeli peace treaty of 1979. They may have had a BW programme as well at one point but if they did public data is thin on the ground. Paraphrased from:

cns.miis.edu...

Also worthy of note they had a fledgling nuclear reactor that the IAF blew up in back in 2007 while still under construction.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by beezzer

 

The concern is that this(chem. weapons) will be the new and accepted way to wage war, if nothing is done.

edit on 1-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

Now I have to give you props for that. I hadn't thought of it in that way.

But if that is the case, then why wasn't Syria bombed when chemical WMD's were being made?
Why wait until they are used?

because that would eat into the profits of western arms manufacturers.
2