General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: John Bolton: I’d ‘vote no’ on Syria strike [View all]DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)I guess that spoils the idea that Obama is siding with the NeoCons.
This vote has some strange bedfellows... the Far Left siding with Paul Rand and the Teabaggers.
John McCain siding with Hillary and Obama... etc.
The trend I see is the groups most vocal against Obama seems to also be against any action in Syria, as if we need to be on the opposite side of an Obama decision. The Libertarians are so blinded that they feel they can spin any decision opposite Obama as the "good side".
The "progressive" left... (shit, I consider myself Progressive, but I am for action in Syria).. is 90% opposed to any action... I never bought into the "death is death" argument... death by chemicals is a war crime, the worst kind of war crime.
I can see the case for the argument that these "moral" wars are costly, and we just can't afford it. Someone posted that we should fix Detroit before we fix Syria -- and I agree! But then I also feel that if we let the use of chemical weapons slide, even just once - it IS going to happen again. Maybe it will happen anyway... but the NEXT time might be a lot worse. A chemical attack in a major city could kill hundreds of thousands in one day... don't ever under estimate how large a chemical attack can reach a city population.
Crimes against humanity, are crimes against the world. War is always hell, but humans have at least to draw a bottom line in war... and that line is chemical weapons.