Alan Grayson

[truedelphi]

80. Whatever.

There are numerous occasions when the USA has used illegal weapons. Those weapons include Agent Orange, white phosphorous, napalm, land mines, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium. In the case of land mines and depleted uranium, the hazards of those illegal weapons do not dissipate inside the region where they were deployed for decades after the fighting has ended.

Maybe we should bomb ourselves?

We also have a "good friend and ally" in the Middle East that was confirmed to have used white phosphorous inside a 575 page report by the UN. That report was completed in 2009, regrding the actions that nation took in Dec 2008 and Jan 2009. I don't remember us needing to bomb that nation, or threaten that nation, or whatever.

So I don't see your question as being simple. I think your question and that whole line of questioning is totally disingenuous, and dangerous to boot. By asking it, you are skirting the deeper moral thinking that informed citizens should be doing right now.

"Why Syria?" would be my question, which is the fundamental question. If you really truly think this has anything to do with 400 some innocent people who were hit by sarin gas, and killed by that exposure, I have a chunk of land near a busy airport to sell you for a meditation center.

This country of ours sat by and supported the President of the Congo and 600,000 people were killed. Not one whimper out of Washington DC officials, not one.

But the Congo is a place we already control. Syria is a place we don't. And Syria is the only nation offering Russia a port for its Navy, and a land mass for other military uses.

The Congo and other nations where atrocities are being committed offer us nothing in terms of military strategy in the coming war against Iran. Nor do any other areas where atrocities are being committed figure into the "needed" pipeline for that region in the Middle East.