The Moral Ambiguity of the Syrian Drama

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.

Beez, don't you know that 400+ dead children in Syria is waaaay more shocking and imperative than 400+ dead children in Chicago or 400+ starving children in Appalachia or +400 plus homeless kids in Los Angeles or 400+ missing or exploited children across the world!!!??

Honestly, I'm not trying to dismiss or minimize the sadness and outrage of dead children in Syria. IT'S HORRIBLE.

I'm only highlighting the convenient spin and outrage as it suits an agenda of globalists and Capitalists that seek to sow division where it profits them.

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.

reply to post by kosmicjack


Wouldn't you agree that it is actually amoral behavior that is driving this and not some false moral outrage then?

Or is morality like a light switch that can be turned on/off or dimmed for whatever occasion?

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?

reply to post by beezzer


I have no idea.

I mean, what the hell is real anymore?

What we see in or own lives? The popular consensus of the interwebz? The conventional wisdom of paid pundits? Leaks from Edward Snowden or WikiLeaks?

Honestly...I have no idea and I'm not sure there is a distinction....

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Beez, don't you know that 400+ dead children in Syria is waaaay more shocking and imperative than 400+ dead children in Chicago or 400+ starving children in Appalachia or +400 plus homeless kids in Los Angeles or 400+ missing or exploited children across the world!!!??

Honestly, I'm not trying to dismiss or minimize the sadness and outrage of dead children in Syria. IT'S HORRIBLE.

I'm only highlighting the convenient spin and outrage as it suits an agenda of globalists and Capitalists that seek to sow division where it profits them.

This is exactly how I feel about it also.

And.......

WHY isn't their outrage on those Countries like Russia, China and Iran who are sending materials and weapons which victimize the innocent in Syria?

Do we not hold them to a higher standard also?

We can point fingers all day, our leaders can feign moral superiority over this mess, but in the End its Leaders from all Countries involve that have the blood on their hands and have started it all.

reply to post by kosmicjack


As humans, we each have our own "line in the sand". We have our own individual moral breaking point.

But the more I study politics and politicians, the more I see a lack of any moral distinction.

Death is always morally abhorrent to us. Even the death of an enemy causes distress to any thinking individual. We justify it using patriotism, defense, any number of reasons.

But it should be amoral to use another's morality against them, or to drive an agenda.

reply to post by beezzer

This history-making Amoral Moment is brought to you by the Moral Republic of the Pentagon, the NSA, the CIA, and the White-Wash House.

Coming Soon to a Country Near You!

reply to post by beezzer


Perhaps your country should pay attention to the problems at home instead of Charging off to war in a country 6000 miles away?

But what do I know

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Beez, don't you know that 400+ dead children in Syria is waaaay more shocking and imperative than 400+ dead children in Chicago or 400+ starving children in Appalachia or +400 plus homeless kids in Los Angeles or 400+ missing or exploited children across the world!!!??

Honestly, I'm not trying to dismiss or minimize the sadness and outrage of dead children in Syria. IT'S HORRIBLE.

I'm only highlighting the convenient spin and outrage as it suits an agenda of globalists and Capitalists that seek to sow division where it profits them.

What else is there to say? I can't even read further. Hell, I may not read another thread on Syria. There is nothing else to say as the above paragraph says it all.

I would give you applause if I could!

reply to post by The GUT


Those of us peons who aren't in the political arena wear our morality like a skin. It's with us every day.

It helps us determine how to act, how to raise our children, how to treat our spouses, how to act at work, how to act in public.

Politicians? They appear to wear their morality like some wear a coat. Convenient when it's cool outside, but something to take off when it get's too hot!

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by beezzer

 

Perhaps your country should pay attention to the problems at home instead of Charging off to war in a country 6000 miles away?

But what do I know

I couldn't agree more.

reply to post by beezzer


Syria is one of only 7 states which are not party to the Chemical Weapons Convention ,However, it is party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the USE of chemical weapons.

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by beezzer

 

Syria is one of only 7 states which are not party to the Chemical Weapons Convention,it only became a problem once they started getting used..

What are the other uses, though, for sarin gas?

Isn't that like saying it's okay to keep a rabid animal as a pet, because you will only get rabies if it bites you?

We treat to prevent.

Where was the moral outrage in the development of chemical WMD'S?

Originally posted by Akragon


Perhaps your country should pay attention to the problems at home instead of Charging off to war in a country 6000 miles away?

But what do I know

True.

And......

When and if there are problems in the World no one should consider Americas help in any messes that happen.

Some good old fashion Isolationism might be what the doctor ordered.

reply to post by beezzer


It was created as a deterrent against Israel's similarly non-admitted nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by beezzer

 

Was created as a deterrent against Israel's similarly non-admitted nuclear weapons.

No nation is morally "in the right".

But to turn a blind eye to the development and then claim moral outrage at it's use, smacks of dishonesty.

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by beezzer

 

It was created as a deterrent against Israel's similarly non-admitted nuclear weapons.

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

Would that define it then as a "moral" justification for it's development and eventual use?

reply to post by kosmicjack


Pretty much exposes them and their agenda, kudos to kosmicjack

I would say that they have feigned an outrage.

This is a drama playing out, hence so many different news coverage
of every little development. Every single stage of this story has been covered,
not just once, but twice, thrice and foursquare.

Consider the red line. That is the only reason stated that the U.S. needs to
go and involve itself. Yeah, here is a line dont cross it.

Feigned outrage. Feigned lines.

There is an old "saying", if you cant get your enemy to do something,
go in and do it, then blame it on them.

We could solve the problem with drones, could they not? For flying ships sake
drones are good enough for every other "outrage". Why a missile strike, one has to ask?

Strike who, for what reason. How many missiles, how many strikes?
Then what? Oh yes, al Qaeda will be put in its place, and cower?

Sigh....