A US bombing attack to "punish" Syria is illegal.

[cheapdate]

67. That's a problem, it seems.

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

You would argue that only those with a perfect past can make moral judgments. You propose that until perfect justice exists for past crimes, a person (or a country) should ignore evil or injustice. The US killed people in Iraq therefore the US cannot take a position on the large-scale use of nerve agents.

If these are the rules, the result is that no one may do anything about injustice or evil anywhere, because, let's face it, no one is perfect and no one's hands are spotless. Bashar al-Assad can do as he will with impunity because no one has the moral authority to judge him.

I recognize that history is important, but I believe that the question over the use of nerve agents in Syria and what the proper response should be (assuming that the Syrian government was responsible) should be decided in the present, not in the past. The answer depends on the present situation and the present lives of the people affected.

I won't defend using phosphorus filled mortar shells to set people on fire, but nerve agents are in an entirely different league. Phosphorus burns on contact with air and gives off a thick, white smoke. Coincidentally, I've worked closely around both phosphorus and nerve agents. There's really very little comparison between the two. If some phosphorus gets released, it's an inconvenience to get some water on it so you can keep working. Nerve agents are in a different league. The precautions for even being in the vicinity of where there are nerve agents are extreme. If nerve agents are released, it's more than just an inconvenience.