Well here we are again. Nothing seems to bring Team Reebok and Team Nike together like a little death inflicted on some foreigners. Now, this is beyond my credentials, but help me understand this. The Syrian regime can kill as many of its people as it wishes by all kinds of means – like shooting them or bombing them. But, when it kills people, the very same people, using some particular other means (e.g. chemicals) then we should intervene? What’s different? Isn’t killing people a pretty crappy thing?
Now, I’m not at all in favor of bombing or doing anything over there, or much of anywhere for that matter. I admit that this might be a stupid/wrong position to take, it is based on both my opposition to wars but also on my reading of the literature that suggests that these sorts of interventions do not lead to good outcomes. But aside from that, if we are going to intervene, then intervene because people are being killed and are suffering. Why does the type of torture matter? Am I missing something here? It’s not like chemicals are new, or that we have not used them ourselves?
By the way, some are asserting that the death toll figures that the US is tossing around are too high and that we are exaggerating the extent of the weapons had by the regime. Sounds familiar. I am very much looking forward to seeing all of those new bumper stickers, “Obama Lied … Thousands Died” … and “No War on Syria.” I won’t hold my breath of course.
OK, back to la la land.