Help me. What is this "own people" line in the sand? [View all]

[lapislzi]

Please let me go on record as saying I don't support military action by the U.S. in Syria. I know I am not as well informed as many, but it strikes me as another horrible misadventure in our (the U.S.'s) continuing series of opportunistic imperial exercises. As I was with previous runups to earlier conflicts, I want to hear the UN (United Nations...get the "united" part?) reach a resolution on this matter. Yes, I know it's an utterly flawed body, but it's better than nothing.

But, since the first Gulf War, I'm hearing this phrase bandied about: "he used xxxxx ON HIS OWN PEOPLE." Is that worse than using xxxxx on someone else's people? Why isn't the use of xxxxxx heinous enough to cause shock, horror, condemnation of the action by an international body? Would it have been less awful, OK even, if Assad had somehow managed to gas a bunch of Iranians (because we hate Iran, right?)

Why should these artificial distinctions make one bit of difference? Isn't the act of using a chemical weapon simply beyond the pale on the face of it, and worthy of condemnation? And, by extension, an unified international response?

I guess I just don't get the whole "own people" angle and why that somehow makes it more worthy of a military response.

Help me, friends, and try not to eviscerate each other (or me) in the process. And please don't ask me what I would "do" in this situation. That's way above my pay grade. My job here is to listen and learn, and maybe form an opinion based on what I've learned.

Thank you.

Edited for spelling because I'm a morning dumbass.