That's really a religious question. But eve if they ARE evil, so what? Foreign policy doesn't involve itself with questions of good and evil.
That's not the cavalier response it may look like -- the answer is "so what?" because pretty much everyone uses chemical weapons one way of another and almost all the time no one does anything about it. The cry of "chemical weapons" is mindless emotionalism designed to eliminate thought, not illuminate it.
What does that mean?
Depleted Uranium (DU) is a toxic heavy metal with lethal properties. The U.S. and other countries have used and continues to use depleted Uranium weapons, DU WMDs. Our depleted Uranium still poisons country from the Balkans to Iraq. Logically, we should have been sending Tomahawk missiles against ourselves for the past 20 years, to teach ourselves a lesson we're clearly having a hard time learning.
So ignore the pseudo morality of a near-hysterical Secretary of State who thought the illegal war in Iraq was a good idea, or at least too popular to resist. When Kerry calls chemical weapons in Syria a "moral obscenity" (as he did on August 26), remind yourself that he has never objected to DU WMDs. Ever.
There is no principle at stake in the current Syrian situation, there is no articulable goal that justifies intervention except intervention for its own sake. All that's at stake in the unprincipled use of power for its own sake.
Are you saying we should just stand by and watch people die?
Get over yourself. We do it all the time when it suits us.
That's how the world has been for a long time, probably even before we intervened with Native American populations by giving them blankets laced with smallpox.
1 | 2